Genetically polluted fields... or a boon to our Ag-industry and personal
nutrition?

Would you knowingly serve food to your family that hasn’t been thoroughly
proven to be safe?

This is the question that millions of consumers are asking throughout the
world.

It’s also a question that the Canadian government is not adequately
addressing, according to many concerned citizens as well as representatives from
national lobby groups and organizations such as the Sierra Club of Canada and
Greenpeace.

At issue are genetically modified (GM) crops. A product of scientific
biotechnology, plants are being genetically manipulated for characteristics that
will be beneficial to their developers. Increased yield, weed and pest control
and nutrition all factor into promoted advantages of GM crops.

The major seed growing and chemical companies love the concept. Industries
such as Monsanto Company and DuPont of the United States, as well as Novartis AG
of Switzerland, claim that critics are hysterical.

Are they?

Does genetic manipulation of the food that arrives upon your table matter?

Maude Barlow, of the Council of Canadians, notes, “There’s been no
long-term testing on what this does to human health and animal health.”

From what I have read (and I thank reader Charles Pirie for his many e-mails,
plus articles I’ve read in such magazines as Alternatives, Nature, and
newspapers like The Ottawa Citizen, plus various websites) it seems as if the
perceived benefits have little to do with improved nutrition.

Instead, Monsanto and its rivals wish to control worldwide seed production
and distribution.

To do this, they have successfully lobbied the agricultural industry to
embrace genetic engineering of seeds so that they will act as their own
herbicides and pesticides.

From the agricultural producer’s perspective, this is potentially a real
benefit and the reasons are probably obvious. The savings from energy
consumption -- not to mention time -- of seeding fields with a crop that is
already resistant to blight and insects, and which promises higher yields is
undeniably attractive to farmers who are notably pressed for time and searching
for ways to improve their bottom line.

However, some producers are evidently not so keen.

Percy Schmeiser is a Saskatchewan farmer who is suing Monsanto. He alleges
that his farm has been polluted by RoundupReady canola that has invaded his land
from neighbouring farms. Jeff Singer’s article in the Canadian magazine called
Alternatives: Environmental thought, policy and action (Winter 2000, Volume 26
Number 1, p. 3) notes:

“But Schmeiser says he never used Monsansto’s seeds, and
Roundup-resistant canola is spreading onto his land, despite his efforts to
control it. ‘It’s in the ditches and the roadsides; it’s in the
shelter-belts; it’s in the gardens; it’s all over,’ he says.”

If Schmeiser’s allegations prove correct, the consequences for any farmer
who is trying to avoid GM crops is severe. If the biotech creations do
successfully cross-pollinate, it means that all crops, all plants are at risk.

In other words, GM crops have the potential to invade and alter the genetic
composition of all plants on earth. And, if all plants are “at risk,” so are
all of us, and every living creature on earth.

Alarmist?

No. I believe we all should be asking a lot more questions about how food
gets onto our table -- and into the mouths of cattle, hogs, sheep and other
species upon which human beings feed.

After all, it never hurts to ask questions.

The Special Report in The Ottawa Citizen, (Monday, January 3, 2000, p. A8)
ran an in-depth article on GM foods. Tom Spear’s section, entitled “GM foods
are a boon to farmers, but consumers ask: So what?” was thought-provoking.

In it, he quotes Mark Sears, a University of Guelph professor and leading
Canadian corn expert. He commented on how consumers don’t perceive it as a
gain and feels that if the biotech companies want us to embrace them, that they
will have to alter their promotional (or spin) techniques.

He says, “They’re working on some rice varieties that are going to have
iron and vitamin E, and other nutritional qualities to them. I think they’re
going to look at oil crops around the world and find those that provide more
nutritious oils. Protein’s going to be the next one.

“Eventually we’re going to have nitrogen fixation in crops that don’t
have it now. Grasses for instance. These are things that are dreams, really,
from the 50’s.”

Dreams or not, many consumers throughout the world think that GM crops
should be more thoroughly investigated prior to their world-wide acceptance.

Critics cite the “pollution” of crops and other natural vegetation (not
to mention the water table and entire food chain) such that “superweeds”
will be created. They also are concerned about human allergic reactions to GM
crops.

As a consumer, I’m no specialist. But I’ll tell you one thing. I do
heartily wish that the Canadian government would be more cautious about
embracing the biotech industry and GM crops.

I also think we, as consumers, ought to know whether the food we buy has been
manufactured from GM crops. Major British food producers such as Nestlés, and
Cadbury, as well as American and Canadian ones like Gerber, HJ Heinz and McCain
Foods have pledged to phase out GM ingredients in their processed foods.

However, the problem is how to identify such crops. And, if the Saskatchewan
farmer is right, and his crops are being contaminated (cross-pollinated) by his
neighbour’s GM crops, how can anyone tell what’s GM and what isn’t?

I do think we ought to be asking more questions. I am convinced the federal
government should be conducting more tests. After all, the European Union has
officially “rejected some types of genetically modified corn and canola,
including several varieties from Canada. It has also said no new biotech foods
will be approved during the next three years.” (Citizen, p. A8)

Skeptical? You bet I am.

What do you think about GM foods?

Katharine Fletcher enjoys her farm near Quyon, Québec. Contact her at
fletcher.katharine@gmail.com